The article seems to be shittily written in my opinion but I figure if you watch the video (about a minute) it will get the point across.

My question lies in, do you think this will benefit the health of the people moving forward, or do you fear it being weaponized to endorse or threaten companies to comply with the mention of Kennedy being tied to its future as mentioned in the end of the article

  • @irotsoma
    link
    English
    126 hours ago

    And it will get reversed in a month…already heard Trumpicans calling it “woke”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 hours ago

      Sorry, trail mix isn’t healthy.

      And saturated fats can be. The whole thing against sat fats is wrong, and was proven so by 1994.

      The FDA is full of shit on this.

      • @MutilationWave
        link
        12 hours ago

        They’ve always been behind the times. If you’re old enough you’ll remember the cholesterol scare. They apparently hadn’t learned the different types of cholesterol yet. This is from my youth.

      • andrew_bidlaw
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        First, they came for frogs and made them gay, and I didn’t speak up for I’m not a frog.

        Then they came for my fats and made them trans.

  • BougieBirdie
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7611 hours ago

    You know what would be way better than a symbol for “healthy” food would be requiring manufacturers to label food that fails to meet standards as “unhealthy.” Bonus points if you tax it to death so it’s no longer economically viable to sell garbage and label it “food”

    Like, shit, the public perception is that I can’t afford healthy food anyway. But at least if the unhealthy food was also labelled it’d be easier to avoid

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
      link
      English
      65 hours ago

      Why is a Payday candy bar 1/3rd the price of a bag of peanuts with fewer peanuts than the Payday has?

      • @MutilationWave
        link
        1
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        We at Payday Corporation hear your voices.

        We have to give a few peanuts to the cocoa slaves, to prevent an uprising. In exchange we had to replace the peanuts with chocolate. They do not respect wealth in the dark heart of Asia.

        We appreciate your lifelong commitment to Payday.

        Sincerely,

        The Payday Corporation

        19 E. Chocolate Avenue

        Hershey, Pennsylvania, US

    • @LifeInMultipleChoiceOP
      link
      0
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      I don’t want more sin taxes. Sin taxes are anti choice. Subsidizing products that’s meet the healthy label I could agree with though

      Edit: aka subsidizing the crops that are used to produce and possibly writing laws to ban the taxation on foods labeled healthy. Thus making such food in states like I live cost 10% less just by banning the state taxes on them before even getting to the subsidization on the crops. Shit, forcing us to move off corn to things like sugar cane would be great. Dense, the crop cycles are better, water usage is less and overall would be easier to manage. As in if we are going to kill ourselves with gas powered cars using 10% ethanol from corn… Why not use 10% from sugarcane which is easier to acquire and better for the population long term

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 hours ago

        Sin taxes are an incredibly effective way to reflect externalities of actions… sin taxes on offensive goods with no healthy malady are dumb as fuck - but we should be making sure that consumers are seeing a more accurate cost for expensive consumption habits. In an ideal world those revenues would be earmarked for programs to counter the societal harm (i.e. buying a pack of cigarettes would come with essentially a payroll style tax that’d fund smoking cessation programs) but America is currently deeply dysfunctional.

      • @b34k
        link
        179 hours ago

        I think sin taxes are absolutely acceptable if the government is also fully paying for the healthcare of all citizens (which we should totally be doing).

        The combination of the two would make America a much healthier place overall.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
          link
          English
          45 hours ago

          The government is not the arbiter of morality, only legality, and I definitely don’t want a government of whatever the fuck the GOP has become deciding what’s affordable and what’s not.

          • @b34k
            link
            59 hours ago

            Right… and your comment was in reply to someone merely proposing taxes that don’t exist yet either…

              • @idiomaddict
                link
                43 hours ago

                They don’t think the US does, they think it should. You don’t need to be so aggressive about it.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 hours ago

                So you’re supportive of Canadian sin taxes on sugar? Obviously America is broken as shit but let’s look at a less fundamentally awful example. Canada has a (granted smaller) issue with obesity and the costs of supporting long term care for it - a sin tax on sugar that helps support the Canadian healthcare system due to the outsized costs obesity causes.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        It’s amazing to me how many people respond to everything with “tax it” or “ban it”. WTF happened to liberty as a national ethos?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2911 hours ago

        Half of them are only cheap because of heavily subsidized corn being heavily processed into an inordinately cheap sugar substitute.

        Taxes aren’t really raising prices so much as undoing the subsidies distorting the market.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Then remove the fucking subsidies! What you’re proposing is that taxpayer money in the form of subsidies goes into the pockets of wealthy agricultural corporations, and then more tax payer money in the form of sin taxes goes to the government to purchase those products, which the government turns around and gives right back to the same corporations. Sheesh! Should we tip them too while we’re at it?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 hours ago

            “Repeal farm subsidies” is one of the few things you could walk into congress and have overwhelming opposition to from both sides.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 hour ago

            I didn’t propose anything.

            But your summary makes absolutely no sense. A tax on manufactured corn syrup after subsidizing corn is functionally the same thing as removing the subsidy for just corn used to make corn syrup.

        • @LifeInMultipleChoiceOP
          link
          111 hours ago

          So your saying the sales taxes are like tariffs, as they are being used to spread the cost to all purchasers without reguard to income making them harm lower and middle class people more, without ever having to raise taxes back to reasonable levels for the high income members of society. (3 million a year+)

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1511 hours ago

            I’m not saying anything about sales tax.

            I’m saying that if you tax foods high in corn syrup, you’re just making it cost what it’s supposed to cost. You’re literally subsidizing the least healthy food at the moment.

            • @LifeInMultipleChoiceOP
              link
              1
              edit-2
              11 hours ago

              Yeah tax on food is strange. It’s 0% in Florida for unprepared food, 10% in Tennessee.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 hours ago

                In Florida corn syrup isn’t taxed at 0% it’s taxed below 0% because it’s already gone through layers of subsidies.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1410 hours ago

        Denmark instituted a sugar tax and that seemed to have very positive effects (manufacturers reduced the sugar content in various products, better health outcomes). It makes sense in countries with socialised health care systems that you’d make the people that end up costing more due to behaviours pay more into it.

      • BougieBirdie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        29 hours ago

        I’d be okay with that. The key thing is we need to do more than we’re currently doing because the system is broken

    • @LifeInMultipleChoiceOP
      link
      9
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Thanks for posting that. Honestly I would almost guess the article was compiled by AI, as it seems to assume you know information it has not previously mentioned.

      If you notice it mentions the symbol multiple times but never shows it. (Not a symbol it can type) Where as a human would have written/drawn/ known it has to be shown or none of the references make sense.

      Or I’m an idiot and they just are saying the term “healthy” is the symbol they are going to use?

      • EleventhHour
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        I read in another article that the “healthy” symbol is currently under development.

          • EleventhHour
            link
            English
            29 hours ago

            No, it’s gonna be some kind of logo that can be used on labels. Like I said, it’s under development currently. What it will look like, nobody is quite sure, in the article. I read mentioned that some critics believe it will oversimplify the matter of buying healthy food, and that it should be more like a label That has some kind of explanation.

            • @LifeInMultipleChoiceOP
              link
              19 hours ago

              Thanks I was an ass just now elsewhere in the comments so I appreciate you being sound. I am not always lol

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            210 hours ago

            My understanding is it will be a symbol, kind of like the USDA Organic symbol. Not necessarily similar in design, but just that the organic symbol means it’s met USDA criteria for being organic

            • @LifeInMultipleChoiceOP
              link
              110 hours ago

              Okay so I’m not crazy thinking they left a very important part of the message out. To me it should have said: FDA Developing a new symbol that will frame the market for they believe is New Healthy

  • Maeve
    link
    fedilink
    69 hours ago

    Lower fat means more sugar. Have less of full fat products.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
      link
      English
      115 hours ago

      Fat is a necessary macro, and the public’s ignorant obsession with fat-free is crazy, especially since it almost always corresponds with more sugar, like you said. Guess what the body turns sugar into.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 hours ago

        And research is pretty clear now that it isn’t fat that causes the problems, it’s unstable glucose

      • Maeve
        link
        fedilink
        12 hours ago

        Yes it is, including saturated fat, in limited quantities.

      • Maeve
        link
        fedilink
        47 hours ago

        Less sauce. But I’ve cut out roux based sauces, except occasionally. And occasionally I will use half and half for coffee and tea. Moderation in all things, including moderation. Also I do much less bread, mainly because proper flour in a food dessert desert is not easy to get, and store bought bread in the USA is gross.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1512 hours ago

    Not really.

    If you cook from ingredients, you’ll usually be reasonably healthy. It’s not impossible to make healthy prepared foods, but it’s (comparatively) expensive enough that that, not awareness, is the main limitation.

    • bizarroland
      link
      fedilink
      010 hours ago

      It is harder to cook healthy foods nowadays than it was even 40 years ago because commercial farming has expedited the growth cycles of plants and animals to the point where they simply cannot process the nutrition available from the environment the way that they used to.

      If you want to eat truly healthy, you basically have to grow the food yourself.

      Since that is completely unreasonable for the grand majority of the modern world, your goal should be to try to eat as healthily as you can. Cooking from scratch and not over cooking your food are very good places to start.

      • madthumbs
        link
        English
        89 hours ago

        I used to believe all that kind of stuff. Our diets are so much more diverse and food more available than ever. We have fresh produce in the winter, and our meat is farmed instead of scarce and hunted. We understand things like needing vitamin C daily, either fortifying rice or not killing / stripping the b-vitamins on it. We can get far more nutrients than we need from food which is why people can eat so many empty calories and be fine.

        -Was sick for years and in a lot of pain because of silicon dioxide (an additive commonly found in vitamins).

  • Bear
    link
    fedilink
    English
    410 hours ago

    Probably most people like myself will ignore the guidelines. The advice looks better than before but I don’t like half of it.